Assessing a BTN presentation material

ARCHIVES 2009

By admin-s On Dec 7, 2009

I wonder what “Kebijaksanaan” the Dr is talking about, apart from Tunku Abdul Rahman (the only name he mentioned, or capable of mentioning) sharing the country with the British’s imported labourers.

By Lee Wee Tak

Given the recent hoo-ha over the BTN thingy, I stumbled across this BTN course material “Erti Kebijaksanaan” by Dato’ Dr. Nordin bin Kardi, Ketua Pengarah. Biro Tatanegara, Jabatan Perdana Menteri.

The subject is intriguing. The title of the presenter, a PhD, a Dato’, a senior officer of the nation’s top bureau, sounds impressive and I have high expectation of getting enlightened

According to Wikipedia,

“Wisdom is knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight….the application of knowledge needed to live a good life…. emphasized various combinations of the following: knowledge, understanding, experience, discipline, discretion, and intuitive understanding, along with a capacity to apply these qualities well towards finding solutions to problems.”

Ok, does our good Dato’ Dr’s presentation imparts knowledge, insight and lead the participants to appropriate action plans for the benefit of the nation?

Page 1 to 4 gave a historical background to the nation’s path to independence. I suppose his message was our forefathers exercised their wisdom in rejecting the other existing approaches in gaining independence.

“Ada pula pejuang-pejuang kemerdekaan yang ingin merdeka bersama dengan Indonesia….”

“Ada pula segolongan yang mahu mengiytiharkan negara ini merdeka seperti negara Islam seperti Pakistan…”

“Ada pula yang ingin merdeka dengan cara meniru cara India dimerdekakan, iaitu dengan melakukan pengorbanan”

“Ada pula yang mahu meniru bagaimana yang berlaku di Palestine…

Tetapi, pemimpin kita akhirnya memilih untuk sanggup memenuhi apa yang disyaratkan oleh British iaitu dengan cara berkongsi negara ini dengan kaum-kaum yang telah dibawa oleh British sebagai subjek untuk kepentingan ekonomi mereka.”

I have no trouble with the Dr. having his own interpretation of historical facts but when there are too many “ada pula” this, “ada pula” that without giving complete factual references to historical figures and events, it dilutes his credibility.

Is it so hard to mention names of those involved? Was the Dr referring to Ibrahim Yaakob, Dr Ahamd Burhanuddin or who ever? Without supporting facts, I wonder is he expressing his personal opinion or commenting on historical facts?

In page 3, the Dr. wrote that “Pemimpin kita mengambil keputusan untuk berkongsi dengan kaum lain yang dibawa British ke sini dan berjanji akan menjaga kebajikan mereka”.

The presentation lacks a clear explanation on what is “menjaga kebajikan mereka”. Yes the Dr. elaborated that UMNO gave MCA and MIC seats to contest in the 1955 elections. However, to make a presentation more complete and objective, material facts must not be omitted.

In the course of “menjaga kebajikan mereka”, economic contributions of the “kaum lain” have to be considered as without these wealth so generated, there is no resource to be talked about let alone utilized.

On page 4 – 5, I think his historical commentary is insufficient.

“…British baru lepas menang dalam Perang Dunia ke-2!…kita tewaskan ini bukan calang-calang kuatnya…mereka mempunyai kekuatan senjata yang tidak boleh ditandingi oleh mana-mana negara di dunia ketika itu.”

Actually, in the 1950’s the United Kingdom was war weary after 2 shattering conflicts and started to grant independence to its colonies.

Fighting against the Communist Party of Malaya was also a drain of their resource they could not afford. To call the Brits unmatched by any nation then would be pure ignorance of the position of power occupied by the United States, Soviet Union and even the newly formed People’s Republic of China (who placed 1.3 million troops in North Korea and fought the United States and United Nations to a stalemate then.)

Remember the ruckus when Dr. Lim Teik Gee produced his research that Bumiputra shareholding has exceeded 30% and various BN government officials were adamant that it was still well below 30%? Well, on page 8, Dr Nordin mentioned that,

“Pada tahun 2000 misalnya di papan pertama terdapat 55.79 billion saham Bumiputra, 52.60 billion adalah milik bukan Bumuputra … jumlahnya 132.22 billion”….that makes it Bumiputra at 42.2% and the non-Bumiputra 39.8%….

If both the Main and the Second Board are combined, the Dr wrote that

“…konteks bursa saham. 59.68 billion ialah Bumiputra, 59.03 billion bukan Bumiputra…” that makes is Bumi 41.6% and non Bumi 41.1%….”

Well done, NEP….now who are we to believe now?

At this stage I wonder what “Kebijaksanaan” the Dr is talking about, apart from Tunku Abdul Rahman (the only name he mentioned, or capable of mentioning) sharing the country with the British’s imported labourers.

Then from page 9 till 16 onwards, I believe the Dr’s true feelings were honesty advocated in his presentation.

“Kepada kaum Bumiputera yang begitu berminat dan bercita-cita untuk bekerja di sektor kerajaan, mestilah berusaha dan menanamkan dalam diri “Aku mesti mengubah” …”Aku mesti berlatih deripada sekarang untuk memasuki bidang perniagaan supaya keadaan ini berubah”

– the Dr has every right to advocate whatever in his mind in a civilised manner but the above statement belongs more to a Malay Chamber of Commerce Workshop rather than a Biro Tata Negara financed by all Malaysian taxpayers.

“….mahasiswa lepasan universiti tidak mempunyai pekerjaan….kalau tidak ada syarikat-syarikat milik Bumiputra yang memiliki sazi seperti yang dinyatakan tadi, kita tidak boleh mengharapjan orang lain untuk menyerap kaum Bumiputra bekerja di syarikat mereka”.

– dear Dr. first of all, are all our graduates supposed to be graduates in the first place?

– Ok, leave that aside, are they employable with the kind of education process that they went through?

– Finally why oh why Bumiputra graduates have to be employed by Bumi companies ONLY?